The EU Court of First Instance has overturned
decisions by the Council of the EU to include the
Kurdish organisations PKK and Kongra Gel on the
EU “terrorist list” (04.04.2008). In Case T-253/04

bought on behalf of Kongra Gel and 10 other
individuals, the EU court ruled that the
organisation was not in a position “to
understand, clearly and unequivocally, the
reasoning” that led the member states’ governments to include them. It reached the same
conclusion in Case T-229/02 bought by Osman
Ocalan on behalf of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)

These judgments were widely excepted following
the rulings in favour of Jose Maria Sison and
Stichting al-Asqa (both based in
Netherlands) in July 2007, and the precedent set
in the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran
(PMOI) ruling in December 2006. In this case the
Court found that the EU’s proscription regime had
denied the PMOI the right to a fair hearing in
which it could challenge its designation as“terrorist list” in accordance with its fundamental right to a fair trial

This paved the way for other proscribed groups
and individuals to challenge their inclusion in the list.

In response to the PMOI ruling, the EU “reformed” its procedures for listing and de-listing.
Whereas prior to the PMOI judgment no mechanism
existed for those proscribed to either receive an
explanation for their inclusion or to challenge
that explanation, the EU now provides affected
parties with a “statement of reasons”. In turn,
they those parties may then write back to the
secret EU group responsible for the decision to
contest the statement and request de-listing. The
EU has maintained in the “terrorist list” those
groups and individuals who have already
successfully challenged their proscription at the
EU Courts on the grounds that its “reforms” remedy the fair trial breaches that the Court has
identified. This issue will not be resolved until
the PMOI’s new challenge to the EU’s decision to
maintain them in the list (Case T-157/07)
returns to the Court, which may take several
years. In the meantime, the challenges by other
proscribed organisations are mounting up – as are the compensation claims.

Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments:

“There isn’t a lawyer in Europe who believes that
the EU ‘reform’ of its proscription regime
amounts to the fair hearing that EU law demands.
On the contrary, the regime remains a recipe for
arbitrary, unaccountable and
politically-motivated decision making. By
ignoring the increasingly clear message from the
EU Courts, the member states are doing themselves a great disservice.

Instead of digging its heels in, the EU should
introduce a meaningful appeals procedure for
affected parties. To wait years for the EU court
system or the Strasbourg Court to deliver a
judgment that everyone can see coming would be an
affront to the EU’s stated commitment to human rights.”

2. EU-RETURNS DIRECTIVE: Statewatch
Supplementary Analysis: The EU’s Returns Directive:www.statewatch.org/analyses/eu-returns-analysis-mar-08.pdfby Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex who
concludes: “The EP and the Council have to decide
whether their endlessly-repeated support for the
principles of fairness, human rights and human
dignity is a genuine commitment, or simply empty rhetoric.”

3. EU: Commission stands firm on biometric
passports: “The European Commission is pressing
ahead with proposals to require the
fingerprinting of children as young as six,
despite high-level concerns about the efficacy
and ethics of the practice” (European Voice, link):www.europeanvoice.com/current/article.asp?id=30138&print=1

Backgound:

EU: FINGER-PRINTING CHILDREN: The high-level
SCIFA/Mixed Committee, meeting on 12 February
2008 discussed the age at which children should
be fingerprinted for visas, residence permits and
EU passports and travel documents in: EU doc no:
6138/08 At a subsequent meeting of the Visa
Working Party, on 18-19 February 2008 (EU doc no:
6952/08): www.statewatch.org/news/2008/feb/eu-council-child-printing.pdf

it was reported in SCIFA that for the: – age
limit: the vast majority of delegations agreed on
the age of six and even a lower age where the
national legislation allows for it. Two
delegations maintained the limit of twelve
years.” The two governments referred to – Germany
and Austria – support the 12 years old and above
proposal from the European Parliament.

The “majority” support finger-printing children
six years old and over while allowing any
government to have a lower age “where national legislation allows for it”.

The letter says that “the unacceptable conditions
for asylum claimants in Greece, the obstacles to
accessing a fair determination procedure and the
risk of other serious human rights violations” as
its reasons. “Greece is not a safe place for
those in need of protection,” Bjarte Vandvik, the head of the ECRE, said.

7. ROMANIA-NATO: Police actions against anti-NATO
protests in Bucharest
On 2 April, hundreds of
police raided the convergence centre of the
anti-NATO gathering in Bucharest and arrested an
estimated 46 people. All the arrests were made
inside the convergence centre, no demonstration
was taking place at the time. Many police
reportedly wore ski masks and were hostile to
journalists trying to access the scene. Romanian
media did not report any violence during arrests,
Indymedia however reports severe beatings by
police. The repression against political
activists was already stepped up a few days ago,
with police arresting and detaining people
arbitrarily. Once detained, the police appear to
construct “offences”, such as interpreting the
carrying of a pocket-knife as arms possessions.
People coming to or leaving the convergence
centre, set up for demonstrators from Romania and
other parts of the world, were also arbitrarily
detained. The detained are interrogated,
photographed and fingerprinted in police
stations, and held for up to 24 hours. At the
Romanian border several groups of activists have
been denied entry into the country.

Protests are directed in particular against
NATO’s ongoing expansion to Eastern Europe, as
well as the extension of its activities to areas
formerly not within NATO’s mandate. On 28
February 1994, NATO took its first military
action, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft,
thereby violating a UN-mandated no-fly zone over
central Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 24 March 1999,
NATO saw its first broad-scale military
engagement in the Kosovo War, where it led an
11-week bombing campaign against what was then
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. A formal
declaration of war never took place. After 11
September 2001, NATO confirmed that the terrorist
attacks were an attack against the entire group
of members. On 16 April 2003, NATO agreed to take
command of the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, which was the first
time in NATO’s history to take charge of a
mission outside of the north Atlantic area.

“Channel Tunnel traffic is to be screened for
nuclear material. Vehicles passing through major
ports and the Channel Tunnel are to be screened
for radioactive material in a bid to combat“nuclear terrorism”” and Watch out, you’re being
watched (The Seattle Times)

Nuclear checks find a cat with cancer that had
undergone a radiological treatment.

Statewatch earlier report from 2007: USA-EU-REST
OF WORLD-FISA: US Senate agree to give immunity
from prosecution to companies spy on the
telecommunications of non-US citizens, that is,
the rest of the world under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Senate
agreed that that civil immunity should be
afforded to companies that aided the warrantless
surveillance program. According to the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008, immunity will be granted
to providers who received a written request for
the information stating that the program was
authorised by the president and determined to be lawful.

“The American Civil Liberties Union responded
today to a stunning new report that the NSA has
effectively revived the Orwellian “Total
Information Awareness” domestic-spying program
that was banned by Congress in 2003.”

“A minimum of solidarity with those oppressed is
to receive them when they are forced to flee. The“right to seek and to enjoy in other countries
asylum from persecution” is indeed a key
provision in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Sadly, this right is not fully observed
in parts of Europe today. Instead, refugees are
met with suspicion and too often even placed in detention.”

Report commissioned by the government to look at:“how the public and private sectors might work
together in identity (ID) management for their
mutual benefit and that of citizens and
consumers.” Argues for a state-multinational
alliance to bring about a universal ID card
system. Amongst its main conclusions is that:

“an ID system will only help fulfil national
security goals if it achieves mass take up and
usage.If citizens don’t use a system regularly,
it will be capable of providing very limited data
for national security agencies.” and “Provided
the universal ID assurance system infrastructure
embraces public services, banking, transportation
and e-commerce, it will produce an unrivalled
amount of data for national security agencies.”

The report is full of assertions and assumption
and little evidence, for example:

“Provided that a universal ID assurance system
infrastructure embraces public services, banking,
transportation and e-commerce, it will enhance
security by making it more difficult for anyone
to operate outside the system. It will ensure
that suspect individuals leave trails of
transactions that are ultimately traceable back
to unique identity records, albeit only for the purposes of national security.”

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, observes:

“We would be utterly naive to believe that mass
ID surveillance, “making it difficult for anyone
outside the system” and “suspect individuals” would be limited to “national security” purposes– which anyway now extends its tentacles into the
everyday life of communities”.

35. EU: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party:
Working Document 1/2008 on the protection of
children’s personal data (General guidelines and
the special case of schools):
www.statewatch.org/news/2008/mar/wp147.pdf